About your Search

20110701
20110731
STATION
CSPAN 16
LANGUAGE
English 16
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)
.s. policy in afghanistan and iraq. we want to begin the segment by talking with the defense policy reporter with bloomberg news. she joins us by phone. she has traveled with defense and that i ton patte iraq. talk about what you heard the defense secretary do while he was overseas. guest: it was interesting to watch secretary panetta and compare how he handled the trip and his interaction with troops and with foreign leaders to secretary gates. he has fairly big shoes to f ill, according to people who were quite complementary. leon panetta also has a lot of familiarity with u.s. military forces. forces. with the commanders and foreign leaders that he is meeting with and going to be interacting with. with his experience as cia director for more than two years before taking this job and in other capacities, for example, a member of iraq study group that did the independent assessment in 2006 of the war in iraq. host: was specifically was the defense secretary trying to accomplish on this trip? guest: he wanted to go out and touch base with the troops themselves and make that connection. it is
the civil war in afghanistan. i do not understand why members of congress want to spend $10 billion a month in afghanistan when our people back home are struggling. i can assure you the american people do not understand it, either. in june, a poll was conducted by the pew research center where 56% of the american people polled said bring our troops home now. not later. mr. speaker, i brought back the picture of edy and stephanie. their father and lieutenant colonel palmer, died, and that continues to haunt me. and the way they died continues to haunt me. that's the reason i wanted to bring this picture down here again. they were given the task to train afghans to be policemen. the two were shot and murdered by one of the trainees. what really haunts me is the email sergeant baldwin sent to his wife the day before he was shot and killed. i quote the email, i don't trust them. i don't trust them. for anything. not for anything at all. why in the world do we continue to send our young men and women overseas to get theirselves blown up, shot, and murdered by people they are trying to train? the
panetta went to iraq and afghanistan. he did not go to pakistan. i take that as a strong message. it is easy when you're in that region to attack on an extra couple of days for an important ally. i think that cross the minds of everyone who planned the trip. it was clearly a conscious decision not to go to pakistan. i think that is in part because when osama bin laden was killed on may 2 there was a list of things that we would ask the pakistan's to do, the pakistani to do, and i have not acted on any of them. this administration also put a hold on a $10 million in assistance. a great way to resolve that is sending the defense secretary to talk to folks about what is going on, but he did not. you are seeing already how differently the pentagon will treat allies in the region. "the in this morning's financial times" they had this headline -- guest: the withdrawal deadline is aggressive. they're talking about getting half of the troops out during the prime fighting season. they do not fight as much during the wintertime. we are starting to withdraw troops during a tumultuous situat
it comes to discussing the merits of continuing our efforts in afghanistan, the republicans clamor to defend it despite our fiscal mess. i want to remind my republican friends the situation we are in now is not new. throughout history from rome to the ottoman empire to the soviet union the over extension of military and protracted struggles in foreign countries has crippled empires. some historians have credited ronald reagan for the soviet union's collapse but what really bankrupted the soviet union was its wars, just like us, they paid a crushing price both financially and morally in afghanistan. overextending geopolitically comes at a cost over time in any nation that thinks otherwise is setting itself up to repeat the mistakes of the past. as of today, the united states has spent more than 2 1/2 times the percentage of g.d.p. on afghanistan that the -- than the soviet union spent on its g.d.p. during its nine-year war in afghanistan. public polls are clear, americans know the cost of the war in afghanistan is unsustainable and want us to withdraw as soon as possible. when it co
away from capitol hill, the economy and debt crisis are weighing heavily on u.s. troops in afghanistan. the top question on their minds saturday, even as bombings rocked the city around them, was the top u.s. military officer couldn't answer. will we get paid? these are soldiers in afghanistan with the bombs bursting around them. here's what the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said, and i quote, "i honestly don't know the answer to that question." admiral mike mcmullin responded, statement telling them to work each day to defend this country. wearing the uniform, listening to bombs go off around them. that is why today what is referred to in the press as real people. i guess we're not. we have students like laura and sidney. we have veterans like bill and roger and carlos and ariana who is a senior. guerm who is a senior. felicia is a senior. alyssa is a senior. they are here representing the millions of people around this country who are as frayed of the soldiers on the frontline in afghanistan. we don't have more delaying tactics? we need to get to the business of hand. we have
spending in iraq and -- of spending in iraq and afghanistan. how about that? we will spend more than $833 million in the next three days in kabul and baghdad. in part to help build clean water systems there. in part to help create jobs there. i just think that's inexcusable that we find ourselves in a position where we're spending in two or three days in iraq and afghanistan when we could spend to eliminate this cut and provide clean drinking water for the people of our country. the amount of subsidies we're going to give oil companies. the oil companies made record profits in 2010. they made about $60 billion in profits, if i'm not mistaken. $77 billion, actually, in profits last year. we'll spend six times as much of this cut in the clean drinking water fund to give money away to those oil companies this year. these are people who made $77 billion in profits last year, whose stocks are off the charts, who are paying their c.e.o.'s hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation, and we're going to give them about $7 billion from the wallets of the people of this country this year. that'
a reason why we are in iraq and libya and afghanistan. but having said that, let's face it, it would be ridiculous to assume that i'm making an appeal for democrats when what i'm talking about is those people who are vulnerable. because of our financial center cause people to lose their homes, it wasn't just democrats, there were democrats, republicans, independents, and those that have no faith in government that woke up in the morning, they lost their jobs, they lost their home, they lost their pension funds, they lost their savings, they had to pull their kids out of school, they lost their self-esteem, some lost their homes. i don't remember anywelfare reform we are talking about people that are registered democrats. these are americans that are expected -- that expected more from their government than just saying that we will be able to address your deeds in the by and by. and the very people that are aged, god knows we are not talking about a party label. we are talking about our sick or we are talking about medicaid, we are talking about medicare, when we talk about social sec
down the wars in iraq and afghanistan don't count. specifically, they say that these savings are -- quote -- "a widely ridiculed accounting gimmick that breeds cynicism." unquote. yet all but three of the 43 senators who signed this letter voted for the ryan budget on may 25 this year. that budget counted the same drawdowns as almost identical in savings. so those savings were legitimate enough to secure their support for the ryan budget but not legitimate enough to secure their support for leader reid's debt ceiling compromise. and here we are on the precipice, and suddenly they've done a 180-degree turn. either these savings count or they don't. you can't have it both ways. so we are proposing exactly what republicans have been saying that they want. yet instead of accepting this deal, they're using what precious time we have left to push forward with their agenda, and it's not even their agenda. it's the tea party agenda. their radical agenda is a wolf in sheep's clothing. last night we voted down speaker boehner's plan which requires the passage of a balanced budget const
a loved one in afghanistan. ethan and stephanie, bowing here at arlington cemetery, lost their father on may 12 of this year. the sergeant, who was stationed at camp lejeune marine base, and another was sent with the mission to train afghan citizens to become police. the men had just sat down to dinner when a rogue trainee opened fire killing both men. in an email to his wife the day before he died, the sergeant said, and i quote, i don't trust them. i don't trust them for anything, not anything at all. this brings me to a quote from a.c. snow's recent column tiled "time to bring them home: let them live." mr. snow is a well-known correspondent in north carolina. and i quote, it seems we never run out of wars. it is as if one small country after another sends out a grave's invitation reading, we're having a war, please come. and uncle sam borrows millions to offer freedom our nation building. mr. speaker, i go back to the two little girls in this picture. how many more children will be at the grave site of a loved one? how many more have to known the pain of war? i further quote from
is in afghanistan, visiting the troops. the question they are asking, will they be paid if this default happens? let me put this plainly. if senator reid's plan passes as they pay down their domestic spending spree with the blood and sweat of our troops, the military will break. we have allowed ourselves to be distracted from the massive entitlement programs that are actually bankrupting the country. that stops here. the budget passed last night shrinks the government and, most importantly, holt's three years of neglect to our armed forces. thank you. now i would like to ask the gentleman from arizona -- i mean virginia, i do not know how that happened, the chairman of our readiness subcommittee. >> i think that this is an important issue. over the last several weeks we have heard a lot about the word compromise. i think that the american people realize that overlaid on that are two other words. we need to make sure that we are having common sense on whatever compromise that we have. we do not understand why it is the democratic administration constantly believes we need to compromise our national s
with afghanistan there. over the years, the number has gone up steadily. the first few years of the strike 2004 to 2007, just a handful, and we see it going up. 2010, under the obama administration, really rising. but a policy never fully publicly articulated. 118 strikes last year. 45 so far this year. pakistanis said a couple of months ago that they wanted to stop here they ordered the cia out of an air base in pakistan were some of the raids have been launched. by my reckoning, there have been a dozen sense, so have these been done like the big law the raid itself against the will of the pakistan government? we do not know for sure, but we do know that our defensive about it, and last month, for example, john brennan tried to allay concerns and talked about new procedure and said that in the past year there have not been a single collateral death because of the exceptional efficiency and provision -- decision of the capabilities they been able to develop. they say no one has been killed. >> so have they delivered on that envisioned? >> this is where the new research comes in here it has been
that they're bringing back, they are companies specifically going after returning iraq and afghanistan veterans to be able to hire them. it was interesting, we were talking about drilling and you go into a drilling platform and they say their favorite people to be able to hire are tank drivers returning from the war zone because they're used to driving equipment, looking on a screen and dealing with multiple things all at once. these are folks employing our veterans and they're engaged in providing great jobs. i was on a fracking site, being able to watch it. it's high tech job, people on computers, as well as people in pumping, trucks, people providing food, people providing the equipment, it's people with big wrenches and people with small computers. and you see this multitude of different jobs provided by oil and natural gas and by fossil fuels we're producing right here in america. we are at a moment that we can either say, we want all green jobs, we want to destroy the jobs producing fossil fuels, or we can say, let's do both. let's encourage the growth of green jobs but let's not
administration. mr. courtney: starting with iraq and afghanistan wars, two wars which, again, lots of debate about whether it was in our national interest, but in any case what is not debatable is that we never paid for a penny of either one of those conflicts. the bush tax cuts, $1.8 trillion . nondefense discretionary spending, $608 billion. tarp, the wall street bailout, which a lot of people forget occurred under the last administration, a medicare drug benefit which was passed in 2005 which was never paid for, not a nickel of that benefit was ever paid for. we were either offsetting revenue or other -- with either offsetting revenue or other spending reductions. and the 2008 stimulus bill which the bush administration had presented, a lot of people don't remember the check they got sent during that time for, again, none of those expenditures were paid for and many of those expenditures such as the bush tax cuts and the iraq and afghanistan war are still recurring expenses which are still accumulating bills and debts which this country is obligated for. when the obama administration took
of questions. >> mr. speaker, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff is in afghanistan and he was asked whether soldiers will get their checks next week. how can you allow the soldiers to even wonder whether they will get paid? >> senator mcconnell and higher months -- both confident that we can come to an agreement with the white house and in this impasse. -- end this impasse. >> we could have had this bill finished early this past week. there was a bipartisan agreement between myself and the senate leaders to move the underlying bill that will be in moving to the house yesterday. the president, all he had to do was say yes and that milk -- that bill would have move quickly through both the house and senate. so we have wasted a week we did not need to waste. now we have been driven into this call the second it is time for the president to decide how we are going to get out of it. >> what gives you confidence? >> in spite of our differences, i think we are dealing with a reasonable, responsible people who want this crisis to end as quickly as possible and i am confident that we will. >>
in afghanistan alone to prop up a corrupt and incompetent karzai government. how about ending wasteful subsidies to big agriculture companies? how about asking billionaire hedge fund managers to pay the same tax rates as their secretaries? the truth is that the best way to deal with our long-term fiscal situation is to grow our economy. that means creating jobs and putting people back to work. the last election i thought was about jobs. we haven't talked about jobs at all since the new republican majority became -- came to power. that means investing in things like education and infrastructure and green technology and medical research. that's the kind of economic future the american people deserve. the boehner default plan would take us exactly in the wrong direction and urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject it. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california has 5 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman is recognized. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, as i listen to my friend from the other side
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)